That is the one thing that science has not yet discovered. Although this should not be mistaken for science cannot discover it. In the 50s there was an experiment where they simulated the primordial soup and proteins started forming. How those proteins formed themselves into self-reproducing cells is not yet know (I believe - although I'm willing to be updated on this).

Being flippant you could say that life is the absence of death (or is it vice versa). You're not going to get a scientific answer to this question as it has not been discovered. Unlike other belief systems which just like to make things up and then say they are true and then kill anyone that objects, the way science works is to make something up and then test it to see if it's true. They also test to see if the opposite is not false (one of the beauties of the scientific method). This is why science doesn't go further than theories. Everything is up for being challenged and when they are proven not to be correct (or not exactly correct) a new and better theory made up.

Just a point of order. The question about "what is life" is actually nothing to do with evolution. One minute we seem to be discussing evolution and the next it moves onto what is life. These are 2 different debates.

Exactly

Leading nicely into the Duck Billed Platypus that interestingly when brought back to the U.K, upon Cooks return, was thought to be a clever fake. The powers that be concluding an animal couldn't have evolved that way

Sorry I've got to duck out of the debate now, it's getting late here.

No, expat regulators .

Ouch


Polly, Bix is picking on us again can I ban him?

You guys want fries with that zinger meal?

Well, you could argue that sunbeds are a part of the development of the human race... but even if not, UV is not manmade and exists in the environment perfectly naturally. Besides, there are many other ways a mutation could happen.

Humans and other creatures share a surprisingly high proportion of their DNA, and 'human DNA' and 'fish DNA' are not different languages at all, they're the exact same language but they say slightly different things. You'd need to see the entire code to see that they were different, because huge sections would be the same.
My code and your code are not the same - otherwise we would be identical, and I'll go out on a limb and say I don't think we are.
But our DNA is made up of the exact same proteins, and there are only 4. All the genetic differences that exist between living things are as a result of those same 4 proteins being lined up in a different order in their strands of DNA. All it takes for a mutation is for one tiny little protein to not be replaced, or to be doubled up on, or to swap places with another one.

As for height.... very early 'pre-humans' were shorter, although some of this was to do with not standing upright in the same way that we do. Anything over the last 200 years or so is not really genetic evolution (200 years is way too short for that) it's a result of changes in nutrition & lifestyle.

More tests are needed, have sex with a goat.

Referring back to an earlier post - I was under the impression that the eye is considered to be "irreducibly complex" i.e. that all the parts such as iris, lens, nerves, etc would serve no purpose on their own, so spontaneously occuring in a form that gives an operational eye just is not possible...

although I am willing to be corrected...

It all started with light detecting membranes and moved on from there. I think it's only creationists that believe it is irreductibly complex as this supports their theories. Unfortunately this is simple thinking (i.e. that the lens, etc would have to develop in a complete form) whereas the reality is that there are animals out there with all different types of eye at different stages of evolution.

Spider-Cow, Spider-Cow,
does whatever a Spider-Cow does




j

Evolution, although a complex issue, has a pretty easy and sound basis and can be explained with simple examples.

Example:

Imagine that there are lots of whales in the ocean, just like humans, these whales can swim at different speeds, some can hold their breath longer than other etc - they are all slightly different, just like all humans are slightly different.

Now imagine that something started killing these whales....for the sake of our discussion, lets assume its japanese whaling boats....

Now, which whales would be caught first ....presumably, it would (generally) be the slower ones that spend more time on the surface, right?? cause they are the easiset for the japanese to catch - a whale that can stay submerged for longer, or can swim faster, has a better chance of getting away.....

So the faster whales survive, and the slower ones get killed (generally)....

so, in that generation, the slower whales got eaten by the Japs and the fast ones got away...

When that generation breed, it would be the fastest whales that breed - leading to offspring that are genetically inclined to be faster.....

Over millions of years, with the slowest whales being kiilled out, and only the fastest ones left to breed, evolution would result in faster whales...

easy-peasey......

It happens over millions of years though - its not like one generation of whales is slow then the next are super fast........

The example used in lots of dicussions is Giraffe's - when food is scarce, giraffe;s eat leaves from trees. Which ones get the most leaves.....the really tall ones (cause they can reach the most)...so shorter giraffe's (who have no way of reaching the tall food) die, leaving only the tall ones to breed.....tall giraffe's breed resulting in tallest offspring.........and only the tallest of that generation survive.....

Apparently this is already happening with hedgehogs in the UK (and probably elsewhere) because the ones with a tendency to roll up, have a tendency to get run over! So they are not breeding as much (breeding being tricky when you're mashed up on a road) and there is now a greater proportion of hedgehogs who tend to run away!! They're nifty little buggers too, and quite good at climbing... I like hedgehogs.

Not sure if that qualifies as evolution... but it's definitely survival of the fittest!

Some of my family are apparently part of the ever increasing numbers of humans who have evolved with less teeth. Some of my cousins have less teeth than usual and all doctors/dentists involved have put it down to evolution of the species due to the way/what we eat and not actually needing as many teeth - I think that's sooooo cool, surely it's not that common to actually see these changes occur in humans.